Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

snakeblitz33

snakeblitz33

Well-Known Member
You may want to get him tested for Aspergers.
A pervasive developmental disorder, Asperger syndrome is distinguished by a pattern of symptoms rather than a single symptom. It is characterized by qualitative impairment in social interaction, by stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities and interests, and by no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or general delay in language.[sup][27] Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody, and physical clumsiness are typical of the condition, but are not required for diagnosis.[8][/sup]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/460#post_3492653
My Nephew is a genius, he is 10. He is super smart but he lacks social skills...I'm beginning to think Pez has the same problem, what he thinks are jokes and pleasant banters doesn't come off that way to others. Being on this site might help him overcome that small tiny flaw.
Not saying your Nephew has any kind of disorder, but your description kinda makes me send up a red flag. Any genius 10 year old who lacks social skills may have aspergers. Just saying.
 
bionicarm

bionicarm

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/460#post_3492653
Okay....I have recieved private messages, and your name was mentioned as someone he berated, so if you are not offended then all is well at least when it comes to you. I personally wasn't all that angry, more like perplexed because his picture made no sense to me. We had made our peace after the first picture that I was offended at. The second one just made no sense, and it made even less sense when he explained it to me.
My Nephew is a genius, he is 10. He is super smart but he lacks social skills...I'm beginning to think Pez has the same problem, what he thinks are jokes and pleasant banters doesn't come off that way to others. Being on this site might help him overcome that small tiny flaw. As for his arguments on his OPINIONS (yes, I said it, and I know what it means...LOL) he hasn't said anything that bothered me....LOL... or convinced me he was right.
So I suggest from here on in...if somebody felt put off, to speak up for themselves (because now I'm out of it) and give the young man a chance to explain what he meant, which seems to be not his intent to be rude. Only on personal levels of communication, because I think we each should be allowed to have our say on the subject, which is the reason for the thread.
LOL...if you don't like others opinions or their stand on the subject....as my 2 yr old granddaughter said.....Don't look, it will just upset you.
Wow, I guess I missed that "beat down".
Trust me, there's very little, if anything that someone says that would offend me. I'm more than capable of defending myself, and do it quite often on this forum. I'm still trying to figure out how you were offended by that picture of the bridge and it's comment. Your interpretation of its meaning was WAY off base. Looked to me you read more into it than what it was implying.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Online social interactions do not follow the same rules as real-world social interactions.
Welcome to the internet.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/480#post_3492694
Online social interactions do not follow the same rules as real-world social interactions.
Welcome to the internet.
You need to THINK before you post a "funny" picture of how it might be taken, it's a social skill to be able to do that. People do try and say a witty remark, and sometimes it does come off wrong (welcome to the internet)....A picture with a caption is a different media, and much easier to offend with, and has different rules in both social circles. What concerns me is that you said that you thought that your pictures were funny and were just meant to be witty.......you also laughed at the troll picture which was intended to offend. While it has NOW become a private joke between us, and NOW is funny.... it's obvious you don't understand pictures and their meaning. when I post a picture like this...it has a clear meaning

Or this could mean more than one thing, it needs a caption...it could mean I'm pullimg my hair out in frustration...or.... I don't know what to do now, please help! A caption gives a picture a clear meaning.

Pictures with captions speak loud and clear. Here is the promised picture.
See the nice smile...it means I'm not mad, or trying to hurt your feelings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/480#post_3492671
Wow, I guess I missed that "beat down".
Trust me, there's very little, if anything that someone says that would offend me. I'm more than capable of defending myself, and do it quite often on this forum. I'm still trying to figure out how you were offended by that picture of the bridge and it's comment. Your interpretation of its meaning was WAY off base. Looked to me you read more into it than what it was implying.
/>
LOL...That first picture was a slur on Christians who always say take a leap of faith...then it said to open your eyes, science tells you to build a bridge instead of jump off of it. It follows the logic of ...if an idiot friend told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it? It implied that Christians were the idiots asking you to jump. I found it offensive the first time I saw it, and when Pez posted it. That nasty picture has a history, ....it was meant to make you think about what it was saying...without saying something to get it banned.
The next "playful" picture implied I had no idea what the words meant that I use...I had Snake trying to say I misinterperated the scripture with the word earth, because in ancient texts it meant something else...so I got out my Hebrew ancient text books to double triple check, and..... I was right. I really don't understand why some folks think I'm some kind of idiot that doesn't at least understand the words I use.
I can understand why a science minded person would consider a religious person stupid for believing...but I do at least understand my own words. So far it looks like the "smart" ones don't even understand a simple pictures meaning.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
I don't know if you are actually mad or if this is your ad hominem attempt at diverting the conversation. As things have always been, if you have a problem with a member, report them or send them a private message (one coming your way). This doesn't belong here. Others may want to discuss the topic at hand.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member
I don't know if you are actually mad or if this is your ad hominem attempt at diverting the conversation. As things have always been, if you have a problem with a member, report them or send them a private message (one coming your way). This doesn't belong here. Others may want to discuss the topic at hand.
Ever wish you could internet choke someone?
Why would she divert the topic? Flower has been steadfast in discussing this. As long as she was respected while doing so.
If you want to discuss the topic, do so. There is no need for pictures insulting ones belief or intelligence. Which is what you posted. I am the forum ass, I know an ass when I see one.

 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/480#post_3492715
Ever wish you could internet choke someone?
Why would she divert the topic? Flower has been steadfast in discussing this. As long as she was respected while doing so.
If you want to discuss the topic, do so. There is no need for pictures insulting ones belief or intelligence. Which is what you posted. I am the forum ass, I know an ass when I see one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/480#post_3492714As things have always been, if you have a problem with a member, report them or send them a private message.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/480#post_3492714
I don't know if you are actually mad or if this is your ad hominem attempt at diverting the conversation. As things have always been, if you have a problem with a member, report them or send them a private message (one coming your way). This doesn't belong here. Others may want to discuss the topic at hand.
No, I'm not mad...I honestly thought you didn't mean to hurt mine or others peoples feelings. I was trying to tell you that you did in fact hurt our feelings and gave you chance to make it right. Your choice of pictures were offensive to me. I sent a PM to answer yours.
In an effort to get things back on track.....
You stated in that PM you sent me, that what you meant with the second picture was that you considered Darwins theory of evolution to be a proven fact, and not an opinion. Now that statement made much more sense than the picture did, and I would like to address that. I read someplace that in his last days that Darwin was repentent on his death bed for his thoery. He never intended to insult God, or inaverently turn people from believing in God. If Darwin, Mr. Science himself believed......That creates quite a pickle don't you think? Whether he did or did not is also now part of a controversy...LOL
Isn't it at least possible to consider that atheists who have made it a religion to NOT believe in God, will take some scientific facts and ran with it like a bunch of loons, the same way the over zealous did with scripture? There are intersting things found in science to look at concerning evolution, there are also things in scripture that also warrant some consideration. I don't think it's wise to stand flat footed and declare your OPINION as solid fact. You are however completely entitled to believe as you do, for whatever reason you do.
 
pezenfuego

pezenfuego

Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/480#post_3492734
No, I'm not mad...I honestly thought you didn't mean to hurt mine or others peoples feelings. I was trying to tell you that you did in fact hurt our feelings and gave you chance to make it right. Your choice of pictures were offensive to me. I sent a PM to answer yours.
In an effort to get things back on track.....
You stated in that PM you sent me, that what you meant with the second picture was that you considered Darwins theory of evolution to be a proven fact, and not an opinion. Now that statement made much more sense than the picture did, and I would like to address that. I read someplace that in his last days that Darwin was repentent on his death bed for his thoery. He never intended to insult God, or inaverently turn people from believing in God. If Darwin, Mr. Science himself believed......That creates quite a pickle don't you think? Whether he did or did not is also now part of a controversy...LOL
Isn't it at least possible to consider that atheists who have made it a religion to NOT believe in God, will take some scientific facts and ran with it like a bunch of loons, the same way the over zealous did with scripture? There are intersting things found in science to look at concerning evolution, there are also things in scripture that also warrant some consideration. I don't think it's wise to stand flat footed and declare your OPINION as solid fact. You are however completely entitled to believe as you do, for whatever reason you do.

What I said in the PM was that evolution is either true or it isn't. You can't have an opinion on it. You are either correct in your belief or you aren't. Now, I'm not correcting you. I'm just elaborating, so don't misread that.
Anyway, as for the deathbed confession, this is almost certainly untrue. According to his daughter, this is made-up. Of course, you know as well as I do that you can't believe everything you read and that this goes both ways. The point of the matter is, we have no reason to believe that this is true. You will also read about how Einstein stuck it to the atheist professor. It's a good story, but there is not a shred of truth to it.
And there are atheists who make it a religion NOT to believe in God. You can see their point of view by considering what it is like to have people assume you are a terrible person based on your beliefs. Of course, that is not an excuse for their actions. And with all organized religions/lack of religions there are going to be extremists. It's unfortunate that the general population assumes everyone of (insert group) is an extremist. Take the religion of Islam for example. It's ridiculous what some people think about it. I like to think that most people are trying to make the world a better place. I'd like to think that we all have the same common goal.
Anyway, I'll google around for that deathbed confession thing. I've read about that before, but I'll try to learn more about it before presenting its falsehood as fact.
>
This is America and many great men have fought so that we don't have to hide our beliefs or be persecuted for them. As such I will respect the beliefs of others and defend my own. If you feel that I've threatened your beliefs, you probably misinterpreted what I wrote. But don't let it slide, call me out on it. Show me that I've done wrong. There's no reason to be passive aggressive about it (and you haven't been). You'll be doing me a favor.
Also, you can believe in both a loving God and evolution. My biology professor last year did (and he's the smartest man I've ever met). He also had a sweet 75 gallon reef tank.
My ex-girlfriend did as well (she is a biology major-wants to be a marine biologist).
Their belief in evolution did not shake their religious backgrounds or personal relationships with God. So that's another thing to keep in mind.
But now I have a new subtopic of interest. That is, how much control do we have over what we believe? What would it take for your beliefs to change? Would simply wanting to believe in something be enough? Do nonbelievers choose not to believe? When answering this question, think about this: Less than 1% of prisoners are atheists. This compared to the much higher percent of total people in the world who are atheists. Now, there are multiple ways to interpret this.
1. There are more bad religious people in the world than bad atheist people
2. Prison makes people convert
3. Prisoners are made to be religious by the people who run the prison
There may be other explanations (and I do not believe #1, btw).
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
...Guilt no doubt plays a big role in the jail house conversions, starting a con going for sympathy and hopes of getting out early is another strong motive. I don't think a person should be released early because they appear to change and be rehabilitated. There is a seperation between church and state....religion has no part in what a criminals punishment is. If a person finds religion in prison, fine...a person can serve him while in prison just as well. The victims are stuck with the aftermath of the crimes these people commit, they have my sympathy.
What could make a person change their beliefs....well if you were lied to and then discovered the truth it might do it. We get over the Santa Clause and Tooth Fairy lies, and as children we absolutly believed.
It is a subject of debate if Darwin actually felt a religious pang on his death bed. One thing is documented, he was raised Christian. He found out the beliefs of his religous leaders and the books didn't match up, he lost faith and rejected it completely (toss the baby out with the bath water) and turned to science for the origin of mankind. That's why I don't follow blindly when it comes to religion, I glean what is useful because I believe the books...I worship and believe in God, not a religion. Mankind doesn't totally understand the natural world, much less the Spiritual.
 
geridoc

geridoc

Well-Known Member
The idea that Darwin regretted his theory, and recanted it in his deathbed is irrelevant. Science does not work by deifying a person, or his beliefs. Even if he did recant, 1 50 years of efforts to prove his theory wrong have only added evidence that in most aspects, he was right.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/480#post_3492762
The idea that Darwin regretted his theory, and recanted it in his deathbed is irrelevant. Science does not work by deifying a person, or his beliefs. Even if he did recant, 1 50 years of efforts to prove his theory wrong have only added evidence that in most aspects, he was right.
I don't think anyone has taken any effort to prove his theory wrong, they have spent 150 years trying to prove he was right. LOL...I have you beat...folks have been trying to prove God does not exist for at least 2000 years, and have still failed to do so. Darwin made some points and helped progress our understanding of human evolution, it's the origin he is mistaken on. IMO.
 
bang guy

bang guy

Moderator
I believe you are mistaken Flower. People have been trying to prove the theory of evolution wrong from the second it was proposed. As they should. All scientific theories should be constantly challenged. It will either break the theory or make it stronger. Either way it's a win for science.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
The whole "Intelligent Design" explanation is a direct effort to disprove Darwin. No one can disprove or prove Biblical creationism because it is solely based on faith, no facts. How can you prove or disprove faith? Faith is not science, it is spiritual.
Some online reading on Darwin's confessional change of heart on his deathbed revealed absolutely no evidence. Supposedly, many years later, his nurse started to do some public speaking events where she claimed Darwin's change of heart. Of course, this made the nurse popular among creationist resulting in more speaking events for the nurse. Darwin made no public announcement, or written statement. If he had actually had a change of heart, of all people, you would think he would have made a public recant of his beliefs, at least through written form.
 
kiefers

kiefers

Active Member
Darwin only had one regret, as I read it and learned through other writings of his. His only one true regret was how he proposed his theory. He added fuel to the war on science and religion. He had no intention of this happening. I wish I could find that book!! He did not want there to be this huge debate against religion vs. science.
 
flower

flower

Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/480#post_3492774
I believe you are mistaken Flower. People have been trying to prove the theory of evolution wrong from the second it was proposed. As they should. All scientific theories should be constantly challenged. It will either break the theory or make it stronger. Either way it's a win for science.
Okay...maybe I said it wrong when I lumped everyone into one pot. Have they not taken 150 years to prove it correct? Are you saying scientists assume a theory is correct and must prove the theory wrong? If so...I agree that putting anything to the test to see if it can handle the heat so to speak makes sense.
I'm sure Christians have tried to disprove his theory based on a desperate attempt to protect their religion, which is why they fight amungst themselves as well, but I assumed fellow scientists and atheists would put in the opposit effort and try to prove it is correct....which is why I had said things as I did.
The actual point of my post is that the theory may be 150 yrs old under ther microscope (scrutiny) but The existence of God has been under the same microscope for much, much longer and has not yet been disproved in the eyes of the believers either.
I can look in awe at the sky full of stars, the beauty of butterflies and touch a tree and be amazed at it all....and say my God created these with a word. Evolutionists have some old Lucy bones, not even all of the Lucy bones, just a few which they embrace as some kind of proof that evolution has merit, and I can still say my God created that too.
If it were ever proved that indeed we all emerged from a pool of mushy goo...I will still say it took a pretty awesome God to speak to that goo, and make it turn into stuff that walks and talks billions of trillions of years later that can debate about it....if we find life on another planet I will declare...Whoop! Look at that, He did it again! One thing remains a constant...scientists can't create life ... they can find it, they can disect it, but they can't make something alive if it is lifeless. That is what seperates the created from the Creator.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top